|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States44393 Posts
On November 16 2018 05:26 ReditusSum wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 16:58 RenSC2 wrote:On November 15 2018 16:43 ReditusSum wrote:On November 14 2018 19:45 Gorsameth wrote:On November 14 2018 19:41 ReditusSum wrote:On November 14 2018 13:16 Plansix wrote:On November 14 2018 13:09 plasmidghost wrote:On November 14 2018 13:02 Womwomwom wrote:On November 14 2018 12:45 plasmidghost wrote:On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote:
They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions". I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed? Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with people connected with the Russian oligarchy to talk about the "adoption of Russian children" (in other words, the Magnitsky Act). Which turned into a meeting to see someone who "might have information helpful to the campaign." Which turned into this tweet: Then into this tweet: I think its pretty clear cut that someone in the campaign at least attempted to collude with a foreign power and there was some quid pro quo business going on. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, they were simultaneously talking about the Magnitsky Act and talking about obtaining negative information about a political opponent. I cannot believe I forgot about this, I guess it just goes to show how many thoroughly crazy stories got reported that this still isn't a talking point, although I'm sure Mueller hasn't forgotten I'm actually curious on the laws regarding this. Is it legal to get dirt on a political rival from someone not affiliated with any government? I assume if they were affiliated with any foreign government, even if they were an ally, it would be illegal It is super fucking illegal to receive material support(money, or anything of value) from a foreign power to assist in winning an election. Sure is. Which is why it is interesting that no one on the left seemed to mind Hillary Clinton's campaign using British intelligence assets to hunt down dirt on Donald Trump. Intelligence assets that worked closely with Russian sources to gather said dirt and put it into a dossier that was then illegally leaked to the media. No, it is much easier just to memory hole all that with a media blackout and straw-manning it all as "because SOROS". Anyway let's look at the fruits of the Mueller "investigation": Because the Democrats hired a US company that has employees, not all of who are US citizens. Its almost like the two situations are very different, and one is illegal and the other is not. But hey, who cares about actual facts right. Not sure I understand this standard. It is okay to receive dirt on your political opponents from Russian agents as long as you launder that information first? When Trump cronies meet with Russian cronies in private and receive dirt in exchange for getting rid of the Magnitsky Act, Trump's cronies are undermining the democratic institutions. Oh well then I guess it is a good thing this never happened.
Dude, they already confessed to this. On twitter of all places.
|
What's really crazy about the trump tower meeting is that it is possible that it was a setup by fusion GPS. Fusion's Glenn Simpson was simultaneously working for the DNC investigating collusion and the Russian lawyer lobbying against the magnitsky act. And he met with the Russian lawyer both on the day of and the day after the trump tower meeting iirc. So it's pretty much impossible to believe that he did not at least know about it. But even if it was all a sting (an impossibly movie-esque sting), Trump jr & sr still demonstrated clear willingness to collude. The only question is whether they succeeded or were too incompetent to do so.
|
"We tried to collude, but the dirt we got was bad" is pretty much the official defense at this point.
“After pleasantries were exchanged the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”
-DonJR, trying to spin down that the meeting was okay cause the dirt was weak
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/143782/donald-trump-jrs-defense-theres-nothing-wrong-colluding-russians
|
United Kingdom10014 Posts
How is the US court system unable or unwilling to stop the torture of kids with special needs? This is absolutely shocking in a developed country with a robust legal system.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/16/judge-rotenberg-center-massachusetts-electric-shocks
For almost three decades the Judge Rotenberg Center in Canton, Massachusetts, outside Boston, has been zapping many of its special-needs residents with a custom-designed electric shock machine known as the GED. Students are required to carry the devices in backpacks that deliver charges of up to 41 milliamps – 10 times the amperage used in most stun guns – to their legs, arms, hands, feet, fingers or torsos via electrodes on the skin.
The shocks, administered by staff using remote controls and lasting up to two seconds, are intended to cause pain that will discourage the students from indulging in harmful or dangerous behavior. The school categorises the punishment as “aversive therapy” which it claims can help seriously troubled individuals avoid life-threatening injury, having been beyond the reach of other care regimes.
Over the years JRC has come under persistent legal fire and endured multiple scandals. In 2007, staff at one of its residential homes received a call from a senior manager instructing them to administer shocks to two badly behaved students aged 16 and 19. Over the following three hours, one of the boys was given 77 shocks, the other 29. It was later revealed that the initial phone call had been a made not by a manager but by a prankster.
In 2012, in the course of civil trial, video footage was released that showed an 18-year-old student, Andre McCollins, being shocked 31 times over seven hours as he was strapped face down on a board. He is heard in the video screaming and imploring “that hurts, that hurts” as the GED is activated, causing burns on his skin.
|
How do US cops constantly get off scot free when shooting unarmed black men?
The legal system isn't as robust as you might believe. Often times there's no desire to prosecute when a thing should be prosecuted, or the attempt is half-hearted and never followed up on. I've never had the impression that the US mental health care system is particularly good unless you've got lots of money, and special needs kids get abused constantly because people don't have a clue how to deal with them. Happens in the UK and Europe as well.
|
On November 16 2018 19:20 iamthedave wrote:
How do US cops constantly get off scot free when shooting unarmed black men?
The legal system isn't as robust as you might believe. Often times there's no desire to prosecute when a thing should be prosecuted, or the attempt is half-hearted and never followed up on. I've never had the impression that the US mental health care system is particularly good unless you've got lots of money, and special needs kids get abused constantly because people don't have a clue how to deal with them. Happens in the UK and Europe as well.
The common defense is something like "Our job is dangerous so occasionally shooting innocent people whose threat-level we can't fully assess at the time is an unfortunate risk and necessary collateral damage."
Of course, the fact that these victims are consistently black, male, unarmed, and rarely doing anything provocative is telling.
|
United Kingdom10014 Posts
On November 16 2018 19:20 iamthedave wrote:
How do US cops constantly get off scot free when shooting unarmed black men?
The legal system isn't as robust as you might believe. Often times there's no desire to prosecute when a thing should be prosecuted, or the attempt is half-hearted and never followed up on. I've never had the impression that the US mental health care system is particularly good unless you've got lots of money, and special needs kids get abused constantly because people don't have a clue how to deal with them. Happens in the UK and Europe as well.
There's a huge difference though. The reason the justice system protects cops is self preservation - the system needs cops onside.
I can't think of a reason to support the torture of special needs kids though, its just sadistic.
|
Normally someone gets indicted 1 or 2 days after a Twitter meltdown about Mueller. Anyone got any guesses? Just 1 person or multiple people? Are we finally up to junior yet?
|
In a ruling that should surprise no one, the Judge sided with the Press rather than the White House. More legal challenges to come but the Jusgr stated that given the current facts CNN should prevail, likely trying to get the White House to back down.
The case also highlighted that most of the news organizations have had were threatened with having their press credentials revoked by this White House, so it isn’t likely that they will back down at this point.
|
|
|
On November 17 2018 00:33 Plansix wrote:In a ruling that should surprise no one, the Judge sided with the Press rather than the White House. More legal challenges to come but the Jusgr stated that given the current facts CNN should prevail, likely trying to get the White House to back down. The case also highlighted that most of the news organizations have had were threatened with having their press credentials revoked by this White House, so it isn’t likely that they will back down at this point. https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1063454094734569480
I read that the judge was a Trump appointee as well. Nice to see there is some integrity left in those he has elevated.
|
On November 17 2018 00:54 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 00:33 Plansix wrote:In a ruling that should surprise no one, the Judge sided with the Press rather than the White House. More legal challenges to come but the Jusgr stated that given the current facts CNN should prevail, likely trying to get the White House to back down. The case also highlighted that most of the news organizations have had were threatened with having their press credentials revoked by this White House, so it isn’t likely that they will back down at this point. https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1063454094734569480 I read that the judge was a Trump appointee as well. Nice to see there is some integrity left in those he has elevated.
Most of his judges have been reasonably qualified and will uphold the law when it is flagrantly abused. Only a few have been wildly under qualified.
|
|
|
On November 17 2018 01:25 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 00:56 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2018 00:54 crms wrote:On November 17 2018 00:33 Plansix wrote:In a ruling that should surprise no one, the Judge sided with the Press rather than the White House. More legal challenges to come but the Jusgr stated that given the current facts CNN should prevail, likely trying to get the White House to back down. The case also highlighted that most of the news organizations have had were threatened with having their press credentials revoked by this White House, so it isn’t likely that they will back down at this point. https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1063454094734569480 I read that the judge was a Trump appointee as well. Nice to see there is some integrity left in those he has elevated. Most of his judges have been reasonably qualified and will uphold the law when it is flagrantly abused. Only a few have been wildly under qualified. Yeah it is dangerous to think that everyone that Trump appointed is bad. It is fine to question each on their merits and the reason behind the appointment. But you have to look at each individual and you would think/hope that most of the people that make it to the level where they could be appointed are pretty good at their job.
I can judge a lot of them on their merits and think are shitty textualist that take a myopic view of our legal system. But the White House’s arguments in this matter were so impressively bad that almost no judge could rule for them. They attempted to argue that they could effectively ban any reporter from covering the president at anytime, anywhere. They might as well have written “Fuck the First Amendment, Trump is King Shit” and saved us all a lot of time.
|
On November 17 2018 01:25 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 00:56 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2018 00:54 crms wrote:On November 17 2018 00:33 Plansix wrote:In a ruling that should surprise no one, the Judge sided with the Press rather than the White House. More legal challenges to come but the Jusgr stated that given the current facts CNN should prevail, likely trying to get the White House to back down. The case also highlighted that most of the news organizations have had were threatened with having their press credentials revoked by this White House, so it isn’t likely that they will back down at this point. https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1063454094734569480 I read that the judge was a Trump appointee as well. Nice to see there is some integrity left in those he has elevated. Most of his judges have been reasonably qualified and will uphold the law when it is flagrantly abused. Only a few have been wildly under qualified. Yeah it is dangerous to think that everyone that Trump appointed is bad. It is fine to question each on their merits and the reason behind the appointment. But you have to look at each individual and you would think/hope that most of the people that make it to the level where they could be appointed are pretty good at their job.
Well, in judges he is a bit restricted by that he can't just appoint random people who stuck their tongue up his ass long enough for him to notice. But his cabinet appointments have a LOT more misses than hits in them.
Rick "abolish the DoE" Perry
Ryan "geologist" Zinke
Steven "private jet" Mnuchin
Betsy "grizzly bears" DeVos
Scott "climate denial" Pruitt (although I think he quit, but wasn't replaced by anybody?)
Ben "cutlery" Carson
And I left Mike Pompeo off this list, because he doesn't seem to be corrupt or incompetent, just dangerously immoral. And these people in turn appointed their own cronies below them, like the one John Oliver highlighted: the oil company lobbyist now in charge of safety regulations for deep see drilling...
|
|
|
On November 17 2018 01:40 JimmiC wrote:
No doubt there are many many questionable ones. I'm just saying you can't throw a blanket over them all and call them bad.
Agreed. It's still funny that he fired half of his 'best' people inside two years though.
|
|
|
On November 17 2018 01:47 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 01:44 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 01:40 JimmiC wrote:
No doubt there are many many questionable ones. I'm just saying you can't throw a blanket over them all and call them bad. Agreed. It's still funny that he fired half of his 'best' people inside two years though. I'm surprised people are loyal to him because he is not scared to throw them under the bus in a heart beat. That being said I'm sure a lot got far ahead by riding his coat tails so it is more mutually using each other than anything else.
Its a high risk high reward career gamble. You can accelerate very fast kissing a narcissistic demagogues ass but then you can fall just as quickly. And I think the ones taking those gambles are ok with it, at some level anyway.. So Loyalty is too strong a word to use here.
|
On November 17 2018 01:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 01:25 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2018 00:56 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2018 00:54 crms wrote:On November 17 2018 00:33 Plansix wrote:In a ruling that should surprise no one, the Judge sided with the Press rather than the White House. More legal challenges to come but the Jusgr stated that given the current facts CNN should prevail, likely trying to get the White House to back down. The case also highlighted that most of the news organizations have had were threatened with having their press credentials revoked by this White House, so it isn’t likely that they will back down at this point. https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1063454094734569480 I read that the judge was a Trump appointee as well. Nice to see there is some integrity left in those he has elevated. Most of his judges have been reasonably qualified and will uphold the law when it is flagrantly abused. Only a few have been wildly under qualified. Yeah it is dangerous to think that everyone that Trump appointed is bad. It is fine to question each on their merits and the reason behind the appointment. But you have to look at each individual and you would think/hope that most of the people that make it to the level where they could be appointed are pretty good at their job. Well, in judges he is a bit restricted by that he can't just appoint random people who stuck their tongue up his ass long enough for him to notice. But his cabinet appointments have a LOT more misses than hits in them. Rick "abolish the DoE" Perry Ryan "geologist" Zinke Steven "private jet" Mnuchin Betsy "grizzly bears" DeVos Scott "climate denial" Pruitt (although I think he quit, but wasn't replaced by anybody?) Ben "cutlery" Carson And I left Mike Pompeo off this list, because he doesn't seem to be corrupt or incompetent, just dangerously immoral. And these people in turn appointed their own cronies below them, like the one John Oliver highlighted: the oil company lobbyist now in charge of safety regulations for deep see drilling...
I just want to say that we have heard nothing from Rick "abolish the DoE" Perry, which leads me to believe he was so terrified of being the guy in charge of all the upkeep of US's nukes has been in hiding ever since.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
